Wyatt Earp... is it better than Tombstone?
 

I own Tombstone Vista Series DVD and I think it's a great movie. Acting is superb and there are some great action scenes. Now with the upcoming release of Wyatt Earp 2-disc SE I'm contemplating buying it blindly. How does this film compare to Tombstone? I've heard it's longer and focuses more on the actual Earp character, rather than the showdown at the OK Coral (although that part is still in Wyatt Earp, it's not as heavily emphasized). I can't say I'm a huge Costner fan, although I love Dances with Wolves.

I wouldn't ever recommend a blind buy. See the movie first before
you put your hard earned down on it. Unless you have more than
you can spend.

As for myself, I love Tombstone. It's a fun western, but I enjoy
the performances and the feel of Wyatt Earp more. They are
really very different from one another. Both are good westerns.

Jason

IMO, Tombstone is much better that Wyatt Earp. Tombstone is one if not my favorite modern western. I haven't seen Wyatt Earp for some time now so I can't comment of specifics but, Val Kilmer was simply amazing in Tombstone.

I remember seeing Wyatt Earp in the theater and looking at my watch a lot.

In short, no. Tombstone is a great movie/action story, Wyatt Earp is a sprawling mess.

Tombstone is far superior when compared to Wyatt Earp IMHO.

Tombstone by a loooooong shot.

I like both movies and whenever they come on cable I watch them. However, I agree that TOMBSTONE has an edge over Wyatt Earp.

Now, let's talk about who played a better Doc Holiday....

Val kilmner.... :up:
Dennis Quaid... :up::up::up:

Wyatt Earp is indeed a better movie than Tombstone, although that isn't saying much and it must be noted that the two are vastly different films.

Tombstone is unfocused, dull in some of it's later sections, anti-climactic and has that ridiculous Kurt Russell mustache(Russel starring in ANY film automatically makes it B-movie quality imo. The guy has such little range.) That said, there's plenty of action for the guys to enjoy. A violent, enjoyable shoot-em-up to watch with some beers while you savor the cheesy, laughable dialogue.

Wyatt Earp is long, and it is slow. While I enjoy long leisurely-paced films that focus on story and character, the pace of Earp seriously hurts it. A good half-hour of extraneous sequences(ie. the train ambush) could be cut from the film to it's benefit. That said, the story is still more rounded than Tombstone, it's better-looking and more authentic, and the acting is all-around more convincing. Dennis Quaid is an awesome and chilling Doc Holliday. I guess which of the two films you prefer depends on what kind of movie you're in the mood for at the moment.

I enjoyed Wyatt Earp more than Tombstone....but I tend to like longer, more explanatory stories...which WE is.

I'll be picking this one up...already own Tombstone.

Wyatt Earp is ok,but Tombstone is much better,one of my favorite westerns of all time,great cast,and val kilmer is the definitive doc holiday(i'll be your huckleberry)Kurt Russel,Sam Elliot,Bill Paxton,Powers Booth and Val Kilmer all give great performances(and i just love the little part that billy bob thorton plays)

I enjoyed both, but I liked Tombstone more. That said, I will still be picking up the Wyatt Earp SE.

Based on the DVDs in your Sig, I would guess you'll like it, but it might be worth a rental first if you are not sure.

Tombstone, imho, is one of the worst westerns ever made...it is just laughably cliched and horribly over acted. Val Kilmer is a disaster as Doc Holliday, and I will never understand how people can confuse his hokie dime store portrayal as great acting.

in other words, go with Wyatt Earp if you need one or the other....but neither are worth owning.

And I LOVE westerns. Tombstone was the biggest disappointment in movie going history. my friend and I were just kind of looking at each other the whole time and laughing at how ridiculous it was. neither could figure out why so many people like it.

Here's the deal - Wyatt Earp is much more historically accurate as to who these characters really were than Tombstone is. Tombstone, however, is far more entertaining than Wyatt Earp. (Costner's portrayal, particularly is closer to what the real Earp was like.)

If you're looking for a shoot-em-up old-fashioned Western, go with Tombstone. If you want a character study and a little more accuracy, go with Wyatt Earp.

Wyatt Earp for me.

I preferred Wyatt Earp, but I'm not that crazy about either one, really.

If Kevin Costner did not portray Wyatt Earp, I would go with that one. But since he did I am going to choose Tombstone as the better movie.

Wyatt Earp is so much better (and the director's cut available on laserdisc is better than the theatrical cut). It makes Tombstone look juvenile.

This is like asking me to choose between Debbie Gibson and Tiffany and the answer is I love both equally but in different ways.

Tombstone is more fun and entertaining - sorta like a "popcorn movie".

Wyatt Earp is a better made film (better direction/acting/cinematography) and more of a western "epic".

They are quite different films, but both are good and both are worth seeing.

Skip both these movie and get "Gunfight at the OK Corral" with Burt Lancaster, Kirk Douglas, and Rhonda Fleming.

Actually I like "Wyatt Earp" a little better then "Tombstone".

"Wyatt Earp" is much better. "Tombstone" is weakened by it's hackneyed, cliche-ridden plot, terrible acting and scenes that do not fit together at all. "Earp" is a much more focused film, with Quaid's performance outshining Kilmer's by a LONG shot.

Wyatt Earp...... :down:

You must have been captain of the debate team.

Right Sparky...and your review of "Barney and Baby Bop Count To 10" was excellent too.

What movielib said, but the exact opposite.